Very few people are partaking of the free breakfast in the hotel lobby at 6:30 on a Saturday. BTW, I have chosen to move my waking time to 6am... it's interesting how that one half hour makes the perceived difference between "early" and "super-early". Not that there is reason to brag either way - I have become conscious of the number of people that get up at that time or earlier.
I am thrilled to have so many thought-provoking comments waiting for me... Speroni actually brought it to my attention that they were accumulating. I get the feeling that I am off-sync with when I post vs when everyone is looking for something to read online... but I bet that works out ;)
I have spent most of the time available to me this morning replying to comments on my "Life's Purpose is Beauty" post. In light of this (and because of it's length) I will double-duty it as my post today. It is sectioned by reply to each of the commenters.
Speroni
An accurate summary of the post (a chosen purpose of appreciating beauty - in the face of purposelessness), but not a statement of my chosen purpose - just a proposed purpose... a hypothesis. The style of my personal writing has consciously become less equivocal - I drop the perhaps'es and the maybe's. I make statements as if they are fact and then see where they lead - what are their implications. When a question occurs to me I record it and then answer it in real time. The point is to not take excerpts from my personal writing as fixed beliefs of mine.
I see your question as a bit of a tail chase or non-question... since art is assumed to be a subset of existence - which is objectively purposeless. Though that assumption bears scrutiny in light of our discussion. If by existence we are talking "reality" - then yes, beauty and art are subsets. This line of thinking is more of a zen bent - looking at the world with an equal eye - realizing that it is all clockworks of a sort - all things purposeless and exactly purposeful at the same time. I think I just got a taste of what the Eastern philosophy intends by holding conflicting thoughts in your head. Yin/Yang balance. (but there is still issue with seeking mental oblivion)
No disparagement perceived... I'm not saying perception or creation of beauty is an objective reason for being. I re-iterate that there is no _objective_ purpose. But a chosen purpose - that is something else. There are many that have made art their purpose in life.
In conclusion: Ohh, so fish-people, by dint of being fish-people are less disciplined than non-fish-people?
Missy
Your comment sparked insight for me... These introspective sessions have a theme: I will detect a pattern in reality - like the hierarchy of organisms - but when it comes to facing the natural conclusion of that pattern when applied to humanity, I fall pray to the same egocentricity that put the Earth at the center of the universe. This applies here... If you propose that all things - including the circle of life in nature - are beautiful, how can you then draw the line at human behavior?
The natural implication is that the barbarism of man can be viewed from the same angle as the "cold" actions of other animals. The only reason for feeling there should be an artificial line between humans and other animals is ego. It is even absurd to separate "the circle of life" from us. Just because we live in climate-controlled asphalt jungles doesn't mean we follow any different rules than everyone on the savanna.
One answer to the dilemma is to refer to the contrast / juxtaposition aspect of beauty. By saying that light is only perceivable in contrast to dark, it does not mean that the dark (the vicious) is beautiful... it allows for some things to be not-beautiful. But yes, because the not-beautiful is necessary for us to perceive the beautiful - are they not beautiful to some extent themselves? Is the light metaphor broken? We can perceive blinding light in absence of contrast... ah, but would we be able to if we _never_ had perceived darkness / contrast?
If there is some sort of limitation on seeing beauty - it would be self-imposed. It takes only putting down your assumed framework - your box - and accepting the broader view. It means taking a bigger box and saying "if I were to put everything I experience into this box, how would it fit. This is a great summary of how to see new viewpoints - a fortunate discovery.
Anonymous
I couldn't agree more that humans "invent" to fill the gaps we feel. I have often summarized God as "the answer to questions we don't have an answer to yet". There is a battle - between subjective and objective reality. My faith is that there is an objective reality - that there is "one way things are" - but what happens when you believe that reality is subjective? Or that there is a benevolent deity that reacts to your will? These latter beliefs may promote personal happiness. What's really interesting is that should I accept one as true, I would probably see evidence to support it.
This raises the question - is the belief in objective reality like the pessimism that I am working to eliminate? If assuming things will work out makes them work out, should I not (in absence of other evidence) assume that there is purpose to existence and see how that impacts my life? I have railed so long against "deluding myself" - why should I assume that the negative is more likely to be real? I am starting to grasp what Pavlina means by "holding different beliefs in your head"... even conflicting ones. Is it all a choice? I have done this in the past to an extent - seeing intellectually a deterministic universe, but having to live as if there is free will. I saw that assuming free will is far more beneficial.
A developing belief of mine is that there is an objective Reality (with "rules" that are impossible to defy), but you can live "out of harmony with Reality" (have goals / motivations that conflict with it). When you are in harmony with Reality, your wellness is promoted. When you are out of harmony "bad things happen to you" - there are negative side affects. As in assuming there is free will, I perceive value in assuming purpose. Wouldn't it be advisable in light of evidence to assume purpose and see what the result of that is? Especially since I currently assume there is no purpose (because I can't perceive one / reason one out) - but it is not a provable hypothesis either way. The only arbitration I can think of is to act on the belief and see the results I receive.
Currently I assume no purpose, but in a way, I am displeased with the over-all quality of my living (that's why I'm working to improve) - doesn't it seem logical that adopting the equally valid and opposite assumption "there is innate purpose to life" could provide an improvement of life quality?
As a side note, I do have to disagree on separating humanity from all other life. There is no reason to think animals don't have choice - it may be less developed, as their reasoning abilities are - but like many things, it is a continuous scale. The scale overlaps - the most aware apes surpassing the most mentally debilitated humans.
--------------------------
Since I just about wiped out this entire post, I think I'll get it online before I make another mistake ;)
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think even if reality has an objective reason. The entire concept of beauty is subjective, almost by definition. They do say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I guess I was meaning the tail chase part on purpose as a question to you.
Is it better to define a higher purpose for the reason that you will feel more fulfilled? If so it would be best to define a "purpose" that would make you fulfilled, rather than a purpose that was..."real". Would it be better to come to terms with objective reality, to find your place in it and accept it. This is dangerously close to the buddist abolition of desire (mind). However I should like to suggest an embrace and recognition of organic desires. To spend some time to differentiate between which desires you deem worthy. Although I suppose the work of deeming worthiness of desire is pretty subjective as well. But that is a subjective filter on a subjective set.
I'm coming around to that theory - that if you (as you say) defining a purpose to feel better, why not define a purpose that makes you feel as good as possible. I like the duality you point out - the buddist nature of "absolute reality" vs the inherently desirous act of defining a purpose...
It is also a worthy suggestion to study "organic needs". To an extent, I have done that. I am becoming a student of what I require as far as sleep. Whenever I feel the urge to eat I reflect on if I am actually hungry feeling - and what it is I really desire to eat.
Many "biologic" urges, if you look closer are driven by higher level psychology. Hmm - or habit. Try looking at drinking - alcohol and caffeine. Next time you reach for a beer or a cup of coffee, look closely at why. Ask what your body really wants.
I'll have to reflect on this topic in more detail...
Things like alcohol and caffiene, I think, are not natural. They are not un-natural really, but more of a fluke. It's not like our brains developed in such as way as to give us feelings of euphoria when certain things are consumed. It's just one of those random things that happens with objective reality. Just a weird bio-chemical coincidence.
At first there is no biological urge to drink, however the first time it's fun, and then the second, then you get used to it. Then after a while there is, in some people, a chemical dependancy. My body really does want some booze. However I know that it would be healthier not to.
Other topic, why is belief in an objective reality akin to pessimism? Is that like suggesting that realistic people are automatically pessimistic?
What would your life be like, if it all worked out? What would it be like if it didn't? What would the difference between the two be?
I don't think you need an abstract belief in a magic carpenter to believe that you have some influence over the course of your own objective reality. (I still have mixed feelings about determinism, but lets say that you can manage to decide things for your own, even though you were predestined to do so anyway. There's some duality.) I tend to think that I can make decisions. I have the perception of making decisions. (Often this decision is to go with what feels nice in the short term.)
I shy away from things that are beliefs. The word itself means accept something with out evidence.
I like some of the ideas of Taoism. A kind of spontaneous flexibility. (I suck at the moderation part.) Its kind of this understanding that if I am flexible with my environment then its impossible for things not to work out, because really, what's the worst that could happen. Hm, I'm going to have to expound on this back on Substance
The optimist assumes all things work out - "believes" if you will ;) The pessimist assumes things will not work out. For some reason it is common to ask a pessimist why they assume how they do and they reply "I'm a realist". Namely, they have observable evidence to justify their preconceptions.
What is odd is that what you believe is what you see. Regardless of if this is due to "universal powers" that fuel the Law of Attraction, or simply the mind's ability to filter input based on what you expect - the optimist must be equal to the pessimist in this respect. If you ask an optimist why they believe as they do, they will likely site observable evidence that concludes that you should expect things to work out.
Shooting from the hip, I think we all feel on a deep level (often un-named) that pessimists are using the Law of Attraction (or the equivalent) against themselves. You have friends that are always negative - which brings them negative results - and you just want to shake them out of their thinking rut. That's why pessimists feel they have to justify themselves and replace the title "pessimist" with "realist". Optimists could just as validly claim to be "realists" - but they don't feel the subconscious stigma attached to the title "optimist".
On another note, thank you for mentioning Taoism. I will become more familiar with it, but at first glance it seems to describe the conclusions I am coming to of late. As with all "religions", or belief sets with a name, I expect to find at least one major point of disagreement with the tenets. But I am realizing that labeling a personal belief set is limiting. You may believe most of the tenets of Christianity, but to say "I am Catholic" limits what you can believe in some way.
Interestingly, eschewing the use of Taoism as a label appears to be encouraged by the tenets of Taoism.
Post a Comment